Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
> I always thinked that -XYZ were some experimental settings, and that > theyr
> behaviour can change from one release to another. Is -X a "fix" : > thing?, and
> do you think that it should be in the html doc?
The -X switch was not changed for a rather long time, and I t
> I do not think that this has much effect on the quality,
> however, if you want to use the "-X" switch (also undocumented,
> although it should be),
I always thinked that -XYZ were some experimental settings, and that theyr
behaviour can change from one release to another. Is -X a "fix" thing?,
Ross Levis wrote:
> I've inadvertantly encoded 5 or 6 albums with this switch. Is there > likely to be
> any quality problems that you know about.
>
> Ross.
I do not think that this has much effect on the quality,
however, if you want to use the "-X" switch (also undocumented,
although it shou
I've inadvertantly encoded 5 or 6 albums with this switch. Is there likely to be
any quality problems that you know about.
Ross.
Mark Taylor wrote:
> The -q option is for internal testing only :-)
>
> -q1 enables some more the thorough scalefactor searching
> code that hasn't been worked on in
>
> I'm using new Win32 compiles from Dmitry. There appears to be a bug in LAME
> 3.84 CVS where it won't start encoding some WAV files (LAME -q1 file.wav). It
> just sits there doing nothing probably in an infinite loop. -q2 works fine. I
> managed to encode an entire album but for another a
I'm using new Win32 compiles from Dmitry. There appears to be a bug in LAME
3.84 CVS where it won't start encoding some WAV files (LAME -q1 file.wav). It
just sits there doing nothing probably in an infinite loop. -q2 works fine. I
managed to encode an entire album but for another album there
